Trial-and-Error

Okay, so you didn't comprehend well what you read and yet opted to take an offensive approach in your reply. Not to worry. I obviously hit on a soft spot. Your mistake was inferring something I didn't imply. Where do I suggest that we should pull funding from religious schools to save money? The clue lies in the second half of the sentence and the sentence following. I was engaging in rhetoric, unless, of course, that is disallowed here at Maple Leaf. Over.

That is a no brainer. Not only should funding be withdrawn but all Catholic and other religious schools should be taxed for messing up the brains of their students. We're going to pay dearly down the road because of what tommyrot is being thrust into their impressionable heads. Moreover, while we're at it, all churches and properties and income of said churches should be taxed. Look at the Catholic church, for instance, they are sitting on untold wealth while millions among their flock of sheep go hungry every day. While I would never ban belief in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus or the little munchkins that live in the forest, if any group would rise up and form some kind of a congregation around their fantasy, I would not be giving them any tax breaks. So why should it be different for churches who support a fairy god?

Absolutely! I mean, c'mon, look at the horrific legislation Georgie Pordgy got through when he didn't have the whole enchilada and when he did, he took no prisoners. And Barrack don't got no Cheney running interference. Still, Barrack missed the boat big time. But then, I think it is entirely possible that he like Georgie is only the titular head. In fact, I think the public would be mortified to learn what the real deal is in politics on both sides of the border. That's why I've given up listening to the news--which it is NOT--it is only that which they want us to think that we know. We in the West live in the lands of smoke and mirrors.

His original point was that he disagreed with spending 850,000 on a bloody ceremony to "honour" those Canucks who fought in Libya--who engaged in murder and maiming--a celebration of inhumanity to man. He kind've thought that the money could be put to better use. So, I agreed with him and as far as the spelling was concerned, I was able to overlook it cuz I understood what he was saying. I am a spelling/grammar critic no more--well, not on forums. I used to engage in that myself but then I reexamined my motives and found them to be welllllll just a tad supercilious. (Joking, just joking). How about a tad elitist (with no justification!!)

You're gooooooood! "...in terms of slogans." HEHEHEHEHE

Cybercoma, in my opinion, it is rare that mistakes are made. We may attribute bad legislation to "mistakes," but it is very deliberate. And that's what angers me the most. These so-called mistakes are by design. And one more thing, I believe strongly that conspiracy in government is the norm; it is not the exception. Far too many people have it backward. Once we have that one clearly understood, everything else falls into place and makes sense. Take 911 for instance; identify all that has happened since, and Eureka, the puzzle is solved. We may not like the picture it forms, but damn it does make sense.

Oh, for the love of gawd, Moonbox, get a life. Topaz is absolutely correct, we need fewer representatives. Not more. For the population of our size, we are over-governed by a bunch of money grabbing thieves. I don't trust any of them. They will do anything to get elected. They will humiliate themselves, they will lie, cheat, do anything at all to achieve power. And we need more to join their ranks. Are you kidding me? Anybody who thinks politicians are there for our benefit, give your heads a shake. They are the dregs of society and while occasionally one comes along that shows some promise, they are cowed by those already there. If government were run on the up and up, I doubt you'd get many who'd want to step up to the plate to get elected. After all what would be in it for them? And then, we have the senate--a joke at best; at worst, sheer theft of the taxpayer. And we don't have the collective good sense to demand change. Anti-regressive conservatives? You bet! But do I think the Liberals are any better? If they are, not by much. The NDPers? Not bloody likely but so long as they are in the opposition, they can talk the talk. The entire system stinks. Canada the true north strong and free. Gag me with a spoon!! and to the south, "...with liberty and justice for all.: Does anyone actually sing or recite this tripe any more? But I digress. Moonbox, we do NOT--I repeat--we do NOT need even one more politician--not one. As for your criticism of Topaz' figures, who cares. He made his point. Not another red cent for more reprobates.

You, Topaz, are spot on IMNSHO. Our health care system was working swimmingly in the 70's and 80's and then ever so slowly things began to change until today our health care system in no way resembles that which it once was. For my money, it has since been monkeyed with and re-designed to fail. What do people do? They get fed up and say well, this universal system of health care is no longer working, let's bring in the American system. They don't think about why it's failing; they only know they're not receiving the medical attention they feel they should. The health care industry is chomping on the bit (they're already here in B.C. and Alberta--probably in more provinces as well). If we are ever to get the health care system back on track, it will require that everybody demand a fast turn-around from the dismal failure it now is. But you know that not everyone gives a damn. Again, it all comes down to how deep your pockets are--and if they're deep enough you don't have to worry about how much health care costs. It's the old tried and true adage, divide and conquer. The sickness-for-profit industry (including the doctors most of whom are over-paid as it is) are poised for a full frontal attack coming soon.

Well, it would be nice; however, I'll not be holding my breath for a change to come. If anything, I predict things are going to become far worse. The super rich believe in their heart of hearts that they can win the squeeze they have on us. And those few rich who've come forward to say they believe they should be taxed--that they should pay be paying their fair share. What do they take us for? Fools? Well, okay, they may have a point. But where have these guys been over these past many decades? Why they've been busying themselves with their accountants looking for-------yes, that's right----------every possible tax deduction loophole. But they are worried not about paying their fair share but about the world's 7 billion population and are working on "a fix" for that. All these excess people don't bode well for the environment and how can the super rich enjoy their lives to the fullest when the environment is under seige? Stay tuned.

Oh, too funny. Uncle Stevie not being served his din-din at the White House. This is meaty stuff to be sure. Notwithstanding what we may think of ourselves, in the scheme of things we're a blip on the U.S. radar screen--and the Yankee administration believes we should be damn grateful for that. So let us stop our whining and give thanks to the fairy god. If we ever had real autonomy from the U.S. I'd be surprised. But it's for damn sure, we don't have it now. When Obama wants Stevie, he reels him in and when he's done he removes the hook and pops the "little" guy back into to the water to swim home. Uncle Stevie is obviously unperturbed by this, so I'm guessing he's getting what he wants out of the relationship. And let's face it, isn't that what really counts? Just as Georgie had and has great disdain for the American plebes, Uncle Stevie thinks pretty much the same about us. Why, we're nothing but a bunch of orphans flailing about, giving our opinions and hoping that we will be heard. Gawd, we ARE a pitiful lot. Still this orphan Annie gots her priorities and I dunt give a whit about how Uncle Stevie gets treated south of the border. As for the border deal,the hackles on the back of my neck spike and I wince whenever government tells me that its latest agreement with the U.S. will be in this country's best interests. Ohgoodgawd, where does it all end. Trust me, we don't want to know!!

I'm with you, William. Of course, I'm a pritty gud spellir myself and I hav a convinshunal keybored, so I dunt have the same prublems that you do. Hell, I don't care how you spell, just so long as it's not so bad that I really don't understand what it is that you are saying. So far, so good. I'm getting the message. Keep up the good work, cuz I agrees with you.

Especially you, Boges. All those right of Centre require exposure to science and to the humanities. Knowing how bleach adversely affects the soil is important for you to know. And in my world, we pay to educate you. We would not take the easy way out and have you pay for damages. It is more important to us that you know why what you did was wrong--you were being injurious to the environment and by extension, injurious to yourself, me and everyone else. But then, too, under my type of administration, you would have learned all this by now so you wouldn't have poured bleach onto the grass in any event. You see we're very much into putting our monies into preventing problems; into researching where potential problems might lie; into helping people be the best that they can be--not the worst. You could do far worse than living in my world.

EXACTLY AND WELL PUT! Another voice of reason!!!!

Well, yeah, ooookay, let's go with that.......if you're talking about trashing. Guys on the left would never set out to trash anything. It's not in their nature. If you mean, that by pitching tents, the hidden grass was unable to avail itself of the light and thus expired or seemed to have expired, that's not trashing. I'm just happy the protesters had a "roof" over their heads. I'm not at all concerned about the grass. If the grass doesn't grow back, the weeds will take over. In any event, by the time spring rolls around, there'll be something for the groundskeeper to mow.

Ohmygawd, how could you even provide such a heinous supposition? Are you from the far right? Anyone from the left would never even think of anyone pouring bleach into the soil--they are sensitive to these things. Still, if we must let's go with your scenario............... If caught, you're going to be arrested and when you come before me (I be the judge), you will be required to research bleach and the harm it does to the environment. You are placed in custody until the assignment is completed. Bye Boges.